Agenda item

The Committee considered

·  A report by the Group Manager – Development Management on various applications for planning permission etc.

·  An Update Report by the Group Manager on Item Nos. 1, 2 and 5, a copy of which is attached to these Minutes as Appendix 1

·  Oral statements on Item Nos. 2 – 4, 6 and 7, a copy of the Speakers List being attached to these Minutes as Appendix 2

RESOLVED that, in accordance with their delegated powers, the applications be determined as set out in the Decisions List attached as Appendix 3.

Item 1 MoD Warminster Road, Bath – Demolition of existing buildings; erection of 204 dwellings; 2 accesses from Warminster Road; vehicular parking; open space; landscaping (including tree removal); pumping station; and associated engineering works – This item was withdrawn from the Agenda and would be likely to be considered at the next meeting on 11^th February 2015

Item 2 Pinesgate, Lower Bristol Road, Bath – Erection of an office building (Use Class B1) with basement parking, associated infrastructure and landscaping following the demolition of existing office building – The Case Officer reported on this application and her recommendation to (A) authorise the Group Manager, in consultation with the Planning and Environmental Law Manager, to enter into a S106 Agreement for various provisions; and (B) on completion of the Agreement, to grant permission subject to conditions. She referred to the Update Report which provided further information on this application and to the availability of a sample panel for Members to view prior to the meeting. The recommended Condition 3 could be amended as regards an acceptable sample panel to cover facing materials and details of window reveals. She also stated that there was no change to the footprint contrary to the statement in the report.

The public speakers made their statements against and in favour of the proposals.

Members asked questions for clarification to which Officers responded. Councillor Ben Stevens made a statement on the benefits of the scheme.

Councillor Ian Gilchrist (Ward Councillor on the Committee) stated that he had not received any representations on the proposals. He referred to the key elements of the development being height, size and use of materials which he considered to be acceptable.

Members asked further questions regarding materials and finishes. The Officers responded that the brickwork was done in different styles with some laid in stretcher courses – a smooth finish was possible despite the rough finish proposed as per the sample panel displayed in the meeting. The stone reveals were recessed as indicated in the photographs.

Councillor Les Kew supported the proposal in principle but was critical of the sample panel provided. He wanted to support the application but the materials and finishes had to be right. Councillor Rob Appleyard referred to various aspects of the scheme which he found to be acceptable although it was regretted that there were not more S106 contributions. The building would be there for a very long time so it had to be the best possible design and materials. He moved the Officer recommendation subject to finishes being agreed which was seconded by Councillor Ian Gilchrist.

Members debated the motion. The Members generally supported the proposal in terms of height, scale and design but discussion returned to the type of facing materials proposed on which there were still some doubts. There was also the factor of how the facing materials would weather and be maintained particularly on a busy road where pollution from car exhausts could be a problem. The Group Manager sought clarity on which materials were being approved by the Committee. The Officers recommended a smooth finish but a rough finish was possible. It could be the subject of a condition regarding a management plan with remedial measures if the facing materials condition or appearance became affected. A lime wash could provide a rough or smooth finish. The Chair supported the scheme but was not happy with the finish. He put the motion to the vote. Voting: 4 in favour and 8 against with 1 abstention. Motion lost.

Councillor Les Kew therefore moved that consideration of the application be deferred for 2 sample panels to be provided to show exactly the 2 types of finish that were being requested with or without a lime wash finish. The motion was seconded by Councillor Martin Veal. Councillor Kew accepted an amendment by Councillor Vic Pritchard that it also includes a third sample with a plain brick finish. The Chair stated that he hoped that the sample panels could be submitted in time for consideration at the next meeting on 11^th February.

The motion was put to the vote and was carried unanimously.

Item 3 Abbey Hotel, 1 North Parade, Bath – Change of use of public highway for the siting of 12 tables and 48 chairs with planters and parasols (Retrospective) (Resubmission) – The Case Officer reported on this application and her recommendation to refuse permission.

The applicant made a statement in support of his application.

Councillor Manda Rigby (Ward Councillor on the Committee) considered that the proposal would give a cluttered appearance to the area fronting the hotel and therefore moved the Officer recommendation to refuse permission. Councillor Dave Laming seconded the motion.

Members debated the motion. Councillor Patrick Anketell-Jones pointed out that Bath was not a seasonal resort and that it was a World Heritage site and this proposal would detract from its appearance. There was little dissension to this view and the motion was out to the vote. Voting: 10 in favour and 2 against with 1 abstention. Motion carried.

Item 4 No 40 Old Newbridge Hill, Bath – Remodelling and refurbishment of a 1960’s detached property including the provision of roof extension (Resubmission of 14/01361/FUL) – The Case Officer reported on this application and her recommendation to refuse permission.

The applicant and her Architects made their statements in favour of the proposal.

Councillor Les Kew considered that the proposal would improve the appearance of the property which was not in a prominent position in any case. Councillor Ian Gilchrist agreed and moved that the recommendation be overturned and permission be granted which was seconded by Councillor Dave Laming.

Members debated the motion. It was generally supported as it was considered that there would not be a detrimental effect and the scheme would actually improve its appearance. The Group Manager stated that the motion would need to be amended to delegate Officers to grant permission subject to appropriate conditions which was agreed. The Chair summed up the debate and put the amended motion to the vote which was carried, 12 voting in favour and 1 against.

Item 5 Sherbourne Cottage, Redland Lane, Bishop Sutton – Proposed dwelling on land to the rear (Revised proposal) – This planning application was withdrawn at the applicant’s request

Item 6 Fosse Way School, Longfellow Road, Westfield, Radstock – Variation of Condition 4 attached to planning permission 13/05256/FUL (Provision of new building to accommodate Post 16 Teaching Area) – The Case Officer reported on this application and her recommendation that, subject to the Secretary of State not calling in the application, the Group Manager be authorised to grant permission subject to conditions. She stated that the application would also need to be referred to the National Planning Case Unit as the proposed development involves playing fields. The Group Manager advised the Committee that a Plans List was to be added to the Recommendation to secure the additional car parking which was proposed.

The Head Teacher made a statement in support of the application.

Councillor Rob Appleyard (Ward Councillor on the Committee) wholeheartedly supported the proposal and moved the Officer recommendation which was seconded by Councillor Gerry Curran who commented on the good work that had been undertaken at the School in the past.

The Chair then put the motion to the vote which was carried unanimously.

Item 7 Nutgrove Farm, Hunstrete Lane, Compton Dando – Erection of 2 storey side extension to form annexe ancillary to main dwelling – The Case Officer reported on the application and her recommendation to refuse permission.

The Parish Council representative made a statement in favour of the application.

Members discussed the percentage increase of previous extensions to the original property and that of the current proposal. Councillor Tim Warren explained the reasons for the proposal and the individual circumstances of the owner/applicant. There had been a lot of support for the development. He therefore moved that the recommendation be overturned and that Officers be authorised to grant permission subject to conditions. The motion was seconded by Councillor Les Kew. The Group Manager advised that support for the development and whether it was visible to the public were not reasons for granting permission. Any disproportionate extensions were by definition harmful. The existing house provided 4 bedroom accommodation, with an attached annexe and the personal circumstances were seldom capable of qualifying as being very special circumstances.

Members debated the motion. Councillor Les Kew considered that the proposed development would not be a disproportionate addition to the original dwelling and it would not be harmful to the openness or rural character of the area and would not represent inappropriate development within the Green Belt. Members generally felt that the personal circumstances were good enough reasons for granting permission. The Group Manager stated that consistent decision making was required and that it could not be said that the extension was not disproportionate. Very special circumstances for going against Green Belt policy were required.

Members continued to discuss the matter. Although there was some dissension that the development couldn’t be allowed on planning grounds, it was still generally felt that the proposal should be allowed. The Group Manager re-emphasised the need for consistent decision making and the requirement for very special circumstances to be demonstrated. Members considered that the extension was required for the family to care for the elderly owner/occupier as put forward by the applicant. This qualified as very special circumstances.

The Chair put the motion to the vote. Voting: 8 in favour and 2 against with 3 abstentions. Motion carried.